Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The Runaways: Joan Jett movie!

Until I read this People magazine article, I hadn't realized that filming is under way for a new film biography of Joan Jett, entitled The Runaways.

I'm old enough to remember when The Runaways stirred a lot of reaction among rock fans -- especially concupiscent teenage hoodlums like me. I was 16 when they issued their first LP and I remember seeing their photo in Creem magazine and saying to msyelf, "An all-chick rock 'n' roll band? Playing their own instruments? Weird."

Yeah, there had always been chick singers, but mostly they tended toward sappy love-song stuff or -- far, far worse -- whiny folk-music nonsense a la Joan Baez. And then there was Heart: A real rock band fronted by the Wilson sisters, who could honest-to-God play guitar. But an all-chick band? Absurd.

The big obstacle to such a project? Well, whoever heard of a rock 'n' roll drummer with a vagina? Get real. That probably had something to do with why The Runaways, as a band, mostly sucked. But when Joan Jett went solo, she rocked.

So I'm looking forward to The Runaways, especially the steamy nude shower scenes and the part where Joan gets all butch-dominant with Cherie Currie . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That stuff's not actually in the movie. Those were the fantasies of a concupiscent teenage hoodlum circa 1976.

UPDATE: Little Miss Attila informs me that I have neglected to note her online shrine of her schoolgirl crush on Joan Jett. Attila is living proof that not ever ex-lesbian is all preachy-and-overcompensating-a-bit-too-much. Her erstwhile preferences are admitted but not shoved down our throats.

That last figure of speech reminds me of another 1976 hoodlum fantasy scenario involving Joan Jett and Cherie Currie, but I digress . . .

And, hey, what's with this Lita Ford fan club in the comments down there? She never impressed me as particularly hot. I'm all about Joan and Cherie, OK? You want chicks who are famous for actually playing guitar, there's Melissa Etheridge . . . uh-oh. I'm about to digress again, aren't I?

UPDATE II: Little Miss Attila links back, mentioning another chick-rocker from the '70s, Suzi Quatro, who was hot. The mnemonic trigger now sparks a dim memory from when I was maybe 14 or 15 and briefly had a thing for Toni Tennille. My adolescent erotic interests were idiosyncratic and eclectic and . . . well, bad and sinful in ways too disgusting to admit. To confess, in 2009, that I once felt amorous stirrings toward a woman whose hits included "Muskrat Love," should give you a hint of how monstrously depraved I was.

I can neither confirm nor deny . . .

. . . being The Prowler, whose identity has long remained a closely guarded secret of The American Spectator. Not even Sidney Blumenthal nor federal grand juries have been able to discover the identity of this Argus-eyed investigator of things sinister, hidden and usually Democratic.

The fact that The Prowler has been sleuthing around with sources unnamed for longer than I've been writing for the Spectator might be seized upon as a clue. And the fact that The Prowler is able to get inside dirt from the White House counsel's office -- the inside story of Valerie Jarrett's involvement in the Van Jones debacle, no less -- might also have evidentiary value.

Yet such are the Spectator's concerns for the security of The Prowler that anyone who wishes to be associated with this prestigious publication must undergo a blood-oath ritual, swearing in a graveyard at midnight never to aid the persistent attempts by our nation's enemies to identify The Prowler. Therefore, if anyone wishes to suspect me of being that mysterious phantom, I am forbidden even to deny it.

However, if you wish to subscribe to The American Spectator, you may one day have an opportunity to meet The Prowler, who always attends the magazine's annual gala dinner -- this year's lavish soiree will be Nov. 19 at the Capitol Hilton -- although he is recognized only by those who have sworn the blood oath. The Prowler might be that elegant fellow drinking extra-dry martinis at the gala reception, or entertaining his dinner companions with subtly ribald jests. Although the uninitiated guests won't recognize The Prowler, they'll nonetheless be able to tell their friends they were at the same gala with him.

By the way, the September issue of The American Spectator -- available for $6.95 wherever fine publications are sold -- features my 3,000-word in-depth article about the IG-Gate scandal, entitled "War On Watchdogs," beginning on Page 46.

Subscribe to The American Spectator now. The Prowler awaits you . . .

The Tanenhaus Republicans and the Architecture of Intellectual Prestige

Should you wish to develop a critique of the conservative movement, yet are incapable of genuinely original thought, try to avoid borrowing your second-hand ideas from an avowed enemy of conservatism like Sam Tanenhaus of the New York Times. (Y'all reckon his Buckley bio will get a good review?)

The brilliant Dan Riehl observes Rachel Maddow's MSNBC guest host Ana Marie Cox (speaking of "sworn enemies") interviewing Tanenhaus "discussing how WND is the equivalent of the Birchers today? Detailing how the Birchers were shut down." Dan continues:
Going on about the lack of intellectuals in conservatism today? Questioning where the Republican leadership is?
Damn! Almost seems to me I heard precisely all that just recently.
Then going on to pull in NRO, claiming that NRO (wink wink) only pretended to reject, while bringing forth new evidence, in the Birther conspiracy? Calling today's conservative "mouthpieces" pseudo-intellectuals? Do they mean Talk Radio? I'd bet they do.
No point in reading The Next Right anymore, perhaps. I can just wait to catch the latest young conservative wisdom on MSNBC. . . .
Ouch. Here's the MSNBC video, so the reader may appreciate the extent to which the liberal Tanenhaus has influenced this species of "conservatism":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What astonishes me is that these Young Turks, who conceive of themselves as infinitely superior to their elders in terms of intellectual sophistication, fail to recognize that they are being played as suckers in a very familiar sort of hustle. I explained this four months ago in "The Republicans Who Really Matter":
The Republicans Who Really Matter can be relied on to reinforce liberal stereotypes of the GOP, and to pen op-ed columns offering "helpful" advice to the Republican Party which, if followed, would lead to certain electoral disaster. . . .
No Republican pundit is ever going to become influential by buddying up to Wayne LaPierre or right-to-lifers; make favorable mention of environmentalism, however, and MSNBC producers will flood your inbox with e-mail invitations to a 10-minute guest segment on "Hardball."
One reliable method for advancing to the pinnacle as a Republican commentator is to argue that the party is badly divided, and to blame this fragmentation on some constituency universally loathed by liberals. . . .
The inarguable fact that liberals dominate the publishing industry, academia and other such institutions of intellect means that liberalism and its advocates possess a prestige that no out-and-out conservative can ever enjoy.

The Monopolization of Prestige
Neither Joseph Farah nor Dan Riehl will ever be published by the New York Times, will they? If Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin or Ann Coulter wrote biographies of William F. Buckley Jr., would their books be praised in a feature NYT book review? Would they be excerpted by The New Republic?

Of course not. Liberals would never lend the prestige of their institutions to such avowed enemies of liberalism. And anyone who desires to research the career of Buckley may easily discover the vehemence with which he was once denounced by liberals -- up until such time as liberals discerned that they might use him as a weapon to attack other conservative targets.

To be the sort of conservative intellectual acceptable to liberals, one must never make a criticism of liberalism that is genuinely effective, an argument that undermines the prestige of liberal ideas and liberal heroes. Why? Because once an intelligent person comes to suspect that liberalism does not deserve its prestigious reputation -- well, the emperor has no clothes, you see? Therefore, Pinch Sulzberger hires a neurasthenic weakling like David Brooks, and not a vigorous, forthright and courageous advocate of conservative ideas.

At some level, the shrewd and ambitious young Republican-leaning writer perceives all this. He understands that he can gain an especial distinction by courting the praise of liberals, in quite the same way a junior varsity cheerleader can become "popular" by dating the defensive line of the varsity football team. And the analogy is all the more apt in that the JV cheerleader who seeks the easiest way to "popularity" so often condemns as ill-motivated hypocrites those more virtuous girls who eschew her ways.

'Boring' or Burkean?
When, in a symposium on Tanenhaus, Austin Bramwell declares that conservatism is "intellectually boring," he is in one sense quite correct. The basic principles of American conservatism -- the defense of constitutionally limited government, opposition to the welfare state, sympathy for tradition, foreign policy based on strength, sovereignty and national interest -- are so well-known that they offer no attraction to those who crave novelty in political thought.

The upstart who desires to gain a reputation as an "innovative" thinker is welcome to seek employment outside conservative politics, if he is not content to find new ways to celebrate old verities or new arguments with which to eviscerate liberals.

Instead, what we see over and over -- see Brooks' disastrously influential "National Greatness" as a textbook example -- is an enthusiastic race to get ahead of the Zeitgeist, to become the Promethean author of a new Welltanschauung, to establish one's place as the founder of Some Other Conservatism.

Wise men are not deceived by these pretentious intellectual hustlers. When a self-described conservative begins slinging around words like "creativity" and "progress" in political discourse, it is not generally taken as evidence of doughty resolve. Rather, it is wise to suspect such a person of being what the Brits would call a trimmer.

The Cruelty of Ambition
Conservatism is a philosophy of opposition. Excuse me for repeating myself, but some of our Young Turks do not seem to be paying attention to the lessons.

They invite chastisement, lest they become still more impudent (if such a thing were possible). I call them "Young Turks," but they rather remind me of certain Young Hegelians of yore, unwisely eager to hasten the historical synthesis. Their conceited trust in their own superiority is dangerous, perhaps more to them than to the hoary elders of the "movement" whom they seek to supplant, and I suspect there would be far less tolerance of dissent if these ambitious youngsters were mounted in the saddle and empowered to wield the whip.

We need no Nietzschean ubermensch nor Platonic archons to rule over us, to enlighten our supposed benightedness and soothe us with their tendentious myths about Olympian idols. This dishonest campaign to employ the aid of Tanenhaus to enlist the departed Buckley as a ghostly advocate of Pragmatism deserves to be rejected with extreme prejudice. And any Young Turks who desire to keep pursuing this approach will do so at peril to their own ambitions.

Whatever the Zeitgeist amongst the intelligentsia, the balance of power within the conservative movement does not favor "Pragmatism," which means that would-be leaders of Some Other Conservatism will suffer from a shortage of followers, and will find themselves isolated and ignored.

Even while I was writing this little essay, the brilliant Dan Riehl was busy discovering what sort of advice Sam Tanenhaus offered to his own party in 2003. The liberal Democrat urged Democrats to embrace their own radicals, while the same liberal Democrat's arguments are now being used to urge Republicans to purge Joseph Farah and WND.

"Maximize the contradictions," as Abby Hoffman said.

Announcement: Waiting For O-Dough

by Smitty


Flush, in the manner of a defective toilet, with the success of OediPOTUS Wrecks, Porch Manqué Productions and its publisher, The Other McCain, were poised to move forward with equally ambitious, dramatic, culturally significant work.

But the budget just wasn't there. So, like any shameless contemporary American outfit, they sought a bailout. When in Rome, do as the Georgians, no?

This piece of Reality Stage-blogging catches Smitty and Stacy as they are poised on the edge of the cusp of success, Waiting for O-Dough…

Act I is up at noon, EST on 09 Sep, with
Act II concluding at noon, EST on 10 Sep

Characters:
Stacy
Smitty
Bob Belvedere
Lefty
Boy

Critical reactions have stunned us, along with minor contusions and a possible fracture. Who knew the SEIU and ACORN were theatre-goers? Here's what they're saying:
  • Samuel Beckett: Intellectual sodomy!
  • Vlad the Impaler: I'd like to give Smitty tea, crumpets, and a sharp stick. And I'm out of tea and crumpets.
  • Alexander Solzhenitsyn: There are archipelagos full of creeps like Smitty.
  • Archimedes: You reek-a!
  • Tōgō Heihachirō: This junk goes down like the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima.
  • Horatio Nelson: Hei domo, Tōgō-san: sound your ship's bell. You know this leaky fishing boat really sinks like the French at Cape Trafalgar.
  • Chester Nimitz: Jolly good, Horatio. But you know that this garbage scow actually hits the bottom like the Imperial Fleet at the Battle of Midway.
  • Cliff Burton: I'd like to offer Smitty some free dental work. Some anesthesia, pulling teeth, you know?
  • Tiberius Claudius Ceasar Augustus Germanicus: I'd throw Smitty to the lions, but that would be unethical treament of lions. Maybe wild dogs?
Very roughly, even brutally, equivalent praise for OediPOTUS Wrecks:
  • H. P. Lovecraft: Typically, consumption by Cthulhu diminishes literary output. Smitty writes on; fearless, mindless, soulless. Scientifically fascinating.
  • Rob Roy MacGregor: O! many a shaft, at random sent, Finds mark the archer little meant! A thousand words, at random spoken, Would improve upon this jackass jokin'!
  • John Wayne: You've got ta be kiddin' me, pilgrim. Why, I haven't seen a manure stream that bad since they drove a herd of diarrhetic cattle across the river feedin' Michael Moore's ranch, givin' us Fahrenheit 9/11.
Copyright 2009, Christopher L. Smith

Psssst!

Not only does Glenn Reynolds like gloom and doom, he likes A Conservative Shemale, too. NTTAWWT. At least she's not 7 feet tall and depressed.

Hey, who can blame TrogloPundit for being depressed? Ever since Sean Hackbarth moved to D.C., Trog's no longer the second-ugliest Republican blogger in Wisconsin.

The Conor Friedersdorf Tar Baby . . .

. . . has done got Br'er Bill Quick all stickyfied. And thanks to Bill for sharing this chill wind from Montauk:
"I am an old hand at sailing, Mr. President, and I have learned that the winds do not always blow one's way," I said. "When you find yourself in the doldrums, I want you to know that all of us in the conservative intellectual movement will be there to blow you."
-- T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII
And as the boys at New England's finest boarding schools are wont to say, nobody blows like a Van Voohees.

The Rick Moran Pragmatism Brigade

Heed the rallying cry! To the barricades, comrades!
Movement Conservatives vs.
The Pragmatists: The Battle is Joined
There can be no compromise in this epic death-struggle over the Destiny of the Cause! Those who are not 100% Pragmatist are the enemy! Only by courageous deeds of fanatical heroism can the victory of Pragmatism be won!

Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the life of the people!

Go with the seven-headed cobra logo, Rick. Nothing says "pragmatism" quite like a seven-headed cobra.

Is 'Liberal Idiot' Redundant?

Late Sunday, I was searching for a blog post that Jennifer Rubin wrote at Commentary about the Van Jones resignation. I had seen it at Ed Driscoll's blog and quoted it early Sunday morning. Then one of the commenters noted that the link had gone dead. Apparently -- for reasons unknown -- the Rubin post had been deleted.

While searching for that post, however, I noticed that Commentary had a symposium about Norman Podhoretz's new book, Why Are Jews Liberals? I skimmed over it, found it interesting and did a post with excerpts of the symposium, adding my own thoughts on the subject.

Monday evening, habitually checking SiteMeter, I discovered that I had been linked by the liberal Balloon Juice blog which ridiculously insinuated . . . well, something:
Maybe I’m too touchy about this, but I’m profoundly disturbed by the idea of relocating intellectuals, especially Jewish intellectuals, so they can learn about real values. Isn’t that exactly what Stalin and Mao did? Is there any Maoist/Stalinist/Leninist idea that the American right hasn’t embraced.
This is the most perverse possible reading of my post, which had observed merely that:
  • Modern liberalism is predominantly an urban phenomenon;
  • American Jews are more likely to reside in urban areas; and
  • Therefore, if conservative Jews wish to ameliorate the prevalence of liberalism among Jews, they should think about ways to encourage more Jews to live in small towns in the Heartland.
Exactly how Balloon Juice views this mild suggestion as "Maoist/Stalinist/Leninist" defies explanation. Then again, the liberal thought-process generally defies explanation. By contrast, conservatiive thought is easily explained:
The simplest way to define conservatism is this: The belief that liberalism is wrong.
The great truths are simple truths. And the great errors are liberal errors. Speaking of liberals and errors, via Memeorandum, I find that the Balloon Juice thread is linked with a Newshoggers post about Max Blumenthal's new book, quoting this from a BuzzFlash review:
"Inspired by the work of psychologist Erich Fromm, who analyzed how the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings, Blumenthal explains in a compelling narrative how a culture of personal crisis has defined the radical right."
Ding! Ding! Ding! Blumenthal's analysis is warmed-over cultural Marxism via the Frankfurt School:
'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. . . .
[Frankfurt School theorists sought a] 'revolution' [that] would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America . . .
The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others.
Thus the discredited Marxist theories of the past are made the ideological template through which 21st-century "progressives" misunderstand the present. From atop my desk, I retrieve my yellowed and tattered old paperback edition of William F. Buckley Jr.'s Up From Liberalism (1961), from pages 78-79 of which I quote, in reference to the Frankfurt School's grandest project:
[O]ne needs no advanced degrees in clinical psychology and psychoanalytical theory in order to penetrate the fallacy of The Authoritarian Personality. Its thesis is very simply this: American conservatives (primarily members of the lower middle class) are the way they are politically because of marked tendencies to authoritarianism. The authors of the project began with the assumption that anyone who is opposed to the welfare state is likely to be "unenlightened" in his attitudes . . . These postulates are fed into a mill . . . to produce the stereotype: "the authoritarian personality."
Which is to say that Adorno, Fromm, Marcuse, et al., were recognized as transparent frauds 50 years ago, and yet we find that Fromm's smug little theory is made the inspirational basis for a "compelling narrative" -- compelling to whom? liberals, of course -- in 2009!

Remarkable, really, how the Left's erroneous presumptions haven't changed at all: If the social welfare state is synonymous with enlightenment, opponents of the welfare state must therefore be unenlightened. The only question remaining for the liberal theorist is to identify the variety of psychopathology that explains this (presumably irrational) opposition.

So it is that Max Blumenthal, who no doubt favors putting the federal government in control of America's health-care system, effectively nationalizing 1/7th of the economy, presumes to diagnose opponents of such policies as suffering from "the fear of freedom."

Well, two can play the armchair psychoanalyst game, and I hereby diagnose Max as suffering from diminished self-awareness and an underdeveloped appreciation for irony.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. When you point out how idiotically circular are the "intellectual" arguments that beguile liberals, their response is the same as it was a half-century ago. The finger is pointed at you and the furious shrieking is heard: "Fascist!"

Monday, September 7, 2009

You Might Be 'Urban Modern' If . . .

. . . you don't understand why it's controversial to have a Marxist Truther as a key White House aide:
These days, the [New York] Times doesn’t consider itself biased. Instead, it's calling itself "urban modern" . . .
[New York Times Magazine editor Gerald Marzorati wrote:] "Call it Urban Modern. That is, I think it reflects not a left-or-right POLITICAL ideology but a geographical one, the mentality of the place it is created: 21st Century Manhattan."
Insofar as "Urban Modern" isn't just another code-word for "gay" (NTTAWWT, Gerald) what does it mean?

In a previous thread, I mentioned that city people can't drive worth crap. So an inability to understand that the left lane is for fast drivers would qualify as a defining characteristic of "urban modern." Let's try a few others. You might be "urban modern" if . . .
  • You graduated from a college where the yearly tuition is larger than the annual income of the doorman at your apartment building.
  • You're all about "rights" mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, but don't believe the Second Amendment really means that ordinary people have the "right" to own guns.
  • You actually considered moving to Connecticut to be a campaign volunteer for Ned Lamont.
  • You're a woman who wears sneakers with a business suit while commuting, switching to heels after arriving at the office.
  • You have ever used the phrase "social justice" in a conversation, and weren't joking.
  • You make a six-figure salary, live in a rent-controlled apartment, and vote for candidates who promise to fix the "affordable housing" problem.
  • You are a magazine editor named "Gerald."
Well, that's a few samples to start the list. Anyone else got suggestions?

UPDATE: Typo corrected, thanks to smart-asses in the comments.

UPDATE II: Jimmie Bise Jr. at Sundries Shack offers some good additions:
  • Your definition of "crisis" is when the sushi bar down the street runs out of California Rolls.
  • Even though you think people shouldn’t eat cows, you’ve never actually seen one face to face.
  • You don’t know anyone whose job requires manual labor.
How do you know that Jimmie Bise isn't "urban modern"? He'd be known as Jamie, and would have a business card describing himself as an "Online Communications Strategist."

Oh, and as for sushi, I believe it was the late Lewis Grizzard who said, "Raw fish and seaweed? Where I come from, we call that bait." (The last time anyone saw an "urban modern" near Moreland, Ga., it was a writer from the New York Times -- sent down to cover the 1996 Atlanta Olympics -- who took a wrong turn leaving Hartsfield Airport. His rental car broke down on I-85. They towed the car to S&M Auto Repair in Newnan, which seemed to make the New York Times guy strangely happy. But then the guy made a lewd suggestion to Bubba, who was working the lube rack. The writer got his nose busted, got locked up overnight in the Coweta County Jail, and missed the men's gymnastics finals. "Urban moderns" have carefully avoided that vicinity ever since.)

Another hateful attack on Michelle Duggar

From a "mommyblogger" who evidently considers herself an expert authorized to condemn others:
I mean, 19 kids? 19?! . . . Is your uterus a baseball dugout? . . .
There's simply no way you can give each of those kids the personal attention he needs. . . . And using your older children as surrogate parents is a recipe for immature behavior down the road. You're robbing them of their childhoods by making them mini mommies and daddies.
Of course, some people hold you up like a goddess simply because you can procreate. You know, Michelle, earthworms can procreate. . . .
Please, Michelle, I beg of you; stop having babies. I know it's tempting to go to 20, but maybe you should just focus on the kids you already have. Mmmmkay?

One could spend a week unpacking all the malicious misconceptions in that one blog post, which bears the charming title, "A Letter to Michelle Duggar from Her Vagina," and whose author is -- what else? -- concealed by a pseudonym, "Christine."

Parents of large families have to put up with this attitude all the time in the Anti-Family Age, when the upper-middle-class suburban career woman with 1.6 children is celebrated as the belle ideal of "responsible" parenting.

Especially wrong-headed is the assertion by "Christine" that having the older children assist in caring for their younger siblings is "a recipe for immature behavior down the road." No only is there zero evidence in social science to support such a claim, it contradicts both common sense and mountains of anecdotal evidence.

Common sense tells us that children learn to act responsibly by being given responsibilities. Caring for younger siblings -- changing an infant's diaper, bathing and dressing a toddler, helping at mealtime -- is exactly the sort of responsibility that helps children develop confidence and maturity. A major reason that first-born children so often excel in leadership is precisely because they have the maximum opportunity to exercise in such supervisory duties from an early age.

Many parents today seem to believe that children are incapable of exercising any responsibility beyond "clean your room" and "make good grades." Yet anyone who has studied human society on a historic and global perspective understands that this "modern" attitude sets an absurdly low standard for children.

The idiot "Christine," in accusing Michelle Duggar of "robbing [her children] of their childhoods," shows how absurdly thoughtless the allegiance to "modern" parenthood has become. Like too many others, "Christine" evidently believes that an appropriate "childhood" should consist entirely of school and play -- a leisurely existence dominated by TV and videogames, the boredom alleviated by soccer practice and music lessons.

This is not a formula for maturity. Rather it is infantilizing, conditioning the child to expect a life of fun without meanignful responsibility. One strongly suspects that "Christine" herself had that kind of over-indulged childhood, which explains her haughty and insulting better-than-you attitude toward Michelle Duggar.

Granted, 19 children is a very large family, but the eldest of Duggars' children are now in their 20s and so far I haven't seen any evidence of the immature behavior" that "Christine" warns about. Until the reality-TV special "Duggars Gone Wild: Spring Break in Cancun" shows up on VH-1, my advice to "Christine" is: Shut your stupid mouth.

Visit the Duggar Family official site here.

Cutting through the Linda Douglass doublespeak

by Smitty (h/t Say Anything)



At some point, to their chagrin, the administration will realize that the people of this country believe them with all the confidence they hold in his Sunshine Pledge.

Leadership is founded, among other things, upon trust, Mr. President. You desperately need to figure out what you're going to do to set about rebuilding some, or it's going to be a long three years and two months to the next election.

Tea Party fields 10K in IL

by Smitty

Just in the inbox: "Sheriff Reports 10,000 at New Lenox/Joliet Rally"
Breaking news from New Lenox/Joliet… the sheriff’s office is reporting to us that the crowd estimate for the rally here is 10,000+ and they are shutting down a portion of Interstate 80 for traffic control do to the massive influx of people
This is:
outside of Barack Obama's bastion of Chicago. And guess what - we had by far the largest crowd yet!
The newspaper of record was last seen sorting its vinyl LPs.

Experts get me off the hook

Vindication, at last! Mrs. Other McCain will be pleased to see the latest scientific study proving that most women have never had sex with me.

(Hat-tip: NewsAlert.)

UPDATE: A not entirely unrelated development: Who is Dita Von Teese, and why is she nearly naked?

UPDATE II: More scientific experts:
[W]omen have sex for many reasons but romance and passion come rather low on the list, a new book has revealed.
"Research has shown most men find most women at least somewhat sexually attractive, whereas most women do not find most men sexually attractive at all," Why Women Have Sex authors Cindy Meston and David Buss said.
One said she did it for a spiritual experience, proclaiming: "It's the closest thing to God."
That was my wife's answer . . .

Hat-tip to Allah, who is an atheist. What does an atheist woman scream during the throes of passion?

"Oh, science!"

Which raging pile of fertilizer will be more fun to ignore?

by Smitty

Competition for the "Worst Use of Human Time" expressed in film is rather tough this year.

I can't figure out if some hagiographic portrait of an idiot bent on destroying his country is worse than a movie by some corpulent capitalist about the evils of what made him rich.

A sort of intellectual Scylla and Charybdis, that brace of clowns.

One suspects their fans in Venezuela, North Korea, Myanmar, Syria, etc. would be pleased, if the idiotic ideas presented would lead to enough spare electricity to run the film.

The Blog Prof has an excellent post on Moore's compost.

Update:
Carolyn's Closet has some quotations, which is more moronic Moore than I'd suffer, but she's tougher.

Olbermann is too easy

by Smitty

Fishersville Mike has an ESPN clip of K.O. confronted by a man.

A quick trip to YouTube has Keith appearing sane, and having a sense of smell:

Of course, Affleck remains the gold standard of the art of Olbermann thrashing. Look how hard it is to push beyond the already high level of self-parody:



Even though we've given Olbermann more attention than he deserves, is it going to help his ratings? I doubt it. It must really suck a lot of pond water to be Keith, watching Glenn Beck tell the truth (albeit in a large font) and clean house.

Oh, there is a sense of crisis, all right

by Smitty (h/t Drudge)

Bloomberg writers Goldman and Johnston are a hoot:
President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.
I, for one, feel anxious about four intertwined crises unfolding:
  1. The slow-motion Constitutional one, where the power seems to be draining first to DC, then to the Executive.
  2. The economic one, where attempts to legislate defiance of economic gravity, and dig out of debt hole, seem perfectly reasonable to the bulk of the lawyer nitwits running the country.
  3. The informational one, where media institutions purportedly dedicated to serving the public with something called 'reporting' eschew that in favor of 'narrative'.
  4. The diplomatic one, where serial jackassery could lead a war of size to make Iraq/Afghanistan seem a skirmish.
The third one is probably the least severe, the fourth the least likely. The first or second will kill us.
Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.

Actually, what we need to do is tell the President to talk to the hand.

There should be no legislation reported out of Congress until:
  1. Someone figures out the Constitutionality of it, proffering an Amendment via Article V to support the substantial questions.
  2. The funding profile is clear. Attempting to make a major change like this in a faltering economy is almost criminally irresponsible.
Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the administration made unprecedented health-care progress in eight months.
It is inarguably the case that the good POTUS has succeeded in awakening the sleeping giant.
  • The further from the center he goes to seek policy, the more stone-cold pissed the American people will become.
  • The more intellectually dishonest charges of raaaaacism are leveled, the more pissed the American people become.
  • The more our foreign policy looks like a cheering section for banana republic autocrats, the more pissed we become.
  • The more we wonder what brave new world awaits us beyond the economic demolition of all we hold dear, the more pissed we become.
You've already got your self-imposed crisis, Rahm.

Pray for peace, everyone. We didn't get here overnight, or without placing excessive trust in our leadership. We also will not restore anything resembling a country with (as a whole) trustworthy leadership and economic stability without significant pain. VodkaPundit's "Never Have So Few Stolen So Much From So Many to Achieve So Little" applies.

Update:
The Reaganite Republican Resistance graciously links.

On Jews and liberals

UPDATE 9/8: For the benefit of liberal blog readers, a relevant question: "Is 'Liberal Idiot' Redundant?"

ORIGINAL POST: The September issue of Commentary has a symposium in which six writers discuss Norman Podhoretz's latest book, Why Are Jews Liberals? A few excerpts:

Since nature abhors a spiritual vacuum, Podhoretz concludes that the religion of liberalism—that is, faith in the powers of government -- has replaced Judaism in the hearts of Jews. . . .
Why, asks Podhoretz, do Jews cling to this belief if it no longer serves our interest? . . .
If I may be allowed so vast a sweep of generalization, Republicans, conservatives, are the party that feels comfortably at home. We need not attach a value to this observation; you may approve of this sensibility or not. But for Jews, unease is our mother tongue. . . .
-- David Wolpe

Jewish liberalism endures, Podhoretz concludes, because turning conservative, in liberal eyes, is nothing short of heresy—or worse, apostasy.
-- Jonathan D. Sarna

Most American Jews, on the other hand, seem to have learned from an early age that to be Jewish is to be a liberal Democrat, no matter what. . . . [T]he loyalty of American Jews to the Left has been unaffected by the failure of the Left to reciprocate that loyalty.
-- Jeff Jacoby

In many cases, Podhoretz notes, left-wing politics took the place of a Judaism that felt to new American immigrants like a business suit on a beach: conspicuous, constraining, ridiculously out of place. . . . On this reading, emotional, facts-be-damned Jewish liberalism is a gravestone marking the death of religious faith.
-- David Gelernter

But my own tentative personal resolution, reached after reading Why Are Jews Liberals?, is this: I'm going to stop worrying about American Jews. They're not worth the headache. Either they’ll come to their senses or they won't, and there's not much I (or anyone else, I suspect) can do about it.
-- William Kristol

For most American Jews, the core of their Jewish identity isn't solidarity with Israel; it's rejection of Christianity. This observation may help to explain the otherwise puzzling political preferences of the Jewish community explored in Norman Podhoretz's book. Jewish voters don't embrace candidates based on their support for the state of Israel as much as they passionately oppose candidates based on their identification with Christianity -- especially the fervent evangelicalism of the dreaded "Christian Right."
-- Michael Medved
The order of the symposiasts has been re-arranged to allow Medved to have the last word for a reason: He's nailed it.

The demonization of the "Religious Right" was a project developed by Norman Lear and others during the Reagan era, after Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority played such a key role in the 1980 election, and this theme has defined the politics of the Democratic Party ever since.

As a political tactic, it is both amazingly effective and fundamentally false. The Republican Party is chiefly devoted to political policies having nothing specifically to do with evangelical Christianity. Yet there is an entire industry of liberal propagandists who specialize in seeking out various outre pronouncements of "Religious Right" leaders and presenting these views as if they would become firm policy in the next Republican administration.

Sophisticates vs. the Benighted
Thus, for the past several years, we were treated to endless liberal jeremiads against "abstinence education," as if the sex-ed curriculum in public schools were the single most important issue in national politics. The propaganda purpose of this liberal campaign was to suggest to people who think of themselves as sexual sophisticates that the GOP is actively promoting ignorance.

If you wish to identify the source of the Republican Party's electoral weakness among under-30 voters, this is it -- even though, as I say, this perception of the GOP as "anti-sex" (or "pro-ignorance") is strictly a function of liberal propaganda. GOP leaders have failed to recognize the damage inflicted by this propaganda, have failed to clarify the policy issues involve and have, at times, unwittingly played to the negative stereotype of Republicans as uptight, repressed, and clueless about sex.

Depicting the "Christian Right" as an especially benighted and menacing component of the Republican Party has, as Medved notes, a particular value in discouraging Jewish Democrats from reconsidering their political loyalties. To any liberal, the conservative is always the Other. But by depicting the GOP as dominated by the "Christian Right," the Otherness of conservatism is effectively doubled -- if not, indeed, magnified exponentially.

Never mind that evangelical Christians are overwhelmingly pro-Israel and philo-Semitic. The liberal propaganda depiction of evangelicals as backward ignoramuses, taking their marching orders from a handful of TV preachers, accomplishes its intended purpose -- to evoke a distinctive cultural revulsion among Jews, and to conjure up nightmare visions of an American Kristallnacht.

Town and Country
This effect is compounded by a factor which, whether or not Podhoretz discusses it in his book, I didn't notice mentioned by the symposiasts, namely the town-and-country divide in American politics. Although the trend to suburbanization has somewhat ameliorated this generalization, most American Jews are fundamentally urban in their orientation, while most American conservatives are fundamentally rural.

Think of Reagan, riding horses and clearning brush at his ranch -- it is an image that appeals to the "country" side of the town-and-country divide, embodying as it does the antique ideal of the American frontier homesteader.

This "rugged individual" ideal, the self-sufficient property owner zealously guarding his freedom, is intrinsic to what American conservatism is all about, and it is an ideal quite alien to the urban lifestyle. The city-dweller is inherently dependent on public services. He doesn't draw his water from a well, doesn't go out with a chain-saw to supply firewood for the winter, doesn't augment the grocery budget by hunting deer or growing his vegetables.

Also, and I think this is an important point, city people can't drive worth crap. A country boy learns to drive by hot-rodding along winding backroads, often well before he's old enough for a license. Because his home is sometimes quite distant from the places where he works, shops or goes to school, the rural youth has typically driven many hundreds of miles before he turns 18.

The rural American's natural love for the internal combustion engine, and his pride in his automotive skill, has a lot to do with his active hatred of environmentalist wienies who want him to limit his fuel consumption by driving a hybrid or -- God forbid -- taking public transportation. "I drive, therefore I am" is the existential truth of the rural American, a truth that the city-dweller can never truly appreciate.

People tend to vote how they live and, despite the particular cultural differences that influence the politics of American Jews, I suspect that lifestyle has a lot to do with the persistence of liberalism in Jewish politics.

If Messrs. Podhorhetz, et al., wish to promote conservatism among American Jews, let them find some way to encourage Jewish families to move to small towns in the Heartland, where their kids can grow up hunting, fishing and hot-rodding the backroads. A guy with a gun rack in the back window of his four-wheel drive truck may occasionally vote Democrat, but he's extremely unlikely to be an out-and-out liberal.

UPDATE 9/10: Oh, for crying out loud, now I've been linked at The New Republic and the New York Times (liberals never link me when I'm bashing RINOs, you might notice). Thanks to this publicity, I suppose that henceforth I shall be known to liberals as The Great Ruralizer.

Meanwhile, I reply to Ron Rosenbaum's Joan-Baez-Made-Me-Do-It defense of liberalism at the Hot Air Green Room. Perhaps this would not be the best place to mention the (strictly hypothetical) scenario of Israel's first Gentile prime minister, but once you poke your thumb in the eye of liberalism, it's usually best to go ahead and use both thumbs.

If anyone named Podhoretz is reading this: You're welcome for the free publicity. The liberals were politely ignoring your symposium, until The Great Ruralizer stirred things up. Feel free to hit the tip jar now.

World's Cutest Child Discovered

In my own backyard!

That's 6-year-old Reagan, a/k/a, "Princess," modeling her fall ensemble. Mrs. Other McCain took the photo below after Reagan fell asleep hugging her stuffed bunny.

And, yes, this is the part where I tell you to hit the tip jar -- it's for the children!

Ruh-roh

China ditching the dollar?
Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee . . . said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed's recourse to "credit easing." . . . "If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies," he said.
Edward Harrison of RGE Monitor explains:
For months now, the Chinese have signalled growing unease with U.S. monetary policy. And now comes the clearest signal yet that they are moving away from the dollar. . . . The $2 trillion in U.S. dollar reserves the Chinese already have are a sunk cost. Going forward, the Chinese are free to do as they wish with incremental additions to reserves.
Which is to say there is a limit to the willingness of Beijing to keep funding endless deficit spending. If China starts shorting the dollar . . . Oh, this could get ugly.

Expect a lot of public pushback from Geithner and Bernanke, who will emphasize that this one official was not expressing actual policy for Beijing. But I rather doubt the markets will be spun so easily.

Watch gold prices today. Wall Street won't be open until Tuesday, but gold is traded globally 24/7 and that price will tell you whether investors are taking this Chinese official's remark seriously.

Just in case you ever doubted
that Keith Olbermann is nuts

He's now asking the Daily Kos kooks to help him destroy Glenn Beck and Fox News:
Find everything you can about Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes. . . . Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes . . .
(Hat tips to Ace of Spades and Howard Portnoy in the Green Room.) Several ironies here:
  • Van Jones was a relative minor administration official. It's not like he was Secretary of the Treasury. And yet his resignation -- he wasn't fired, he resigned -- is the casus belli for total war on Beck.
  • It's not like Jones was sent to federal prison. (As opposed to Scooter Libby, who took the fall in the Left's PlameGate witch-hunt.) Jones will surely go on to some prestigious big-money job, plus the usual book deal, speaking engagements, etc. His "victimhood" is non-existent.
  • Having Olbermann as an enemy is just another feather in Beck's cap.
So, either Olbermann is completely nuts or he's just cynical exploiting the insane rage of the Nutroots. Either way, nothing Olby does can harm Beck, and all this stunt will do is to demonstrate Olby's impotence.

Memeorandum goes nuts for this. The Jones-as-victim meme is also pushed by Alan Colmes, Jane Hamsher, Carl Pope of HuffPo and some left-wing blogger whom I never heard of until Sunday. And the same idea -- Jones victimized by vicious Republicans -- was a favorite theme of network news coverage of Jones' resignation.

The astounding disproportion between the facts -- who Van Jones is and what got him in trouble -- and the Left's perception tells you a lot about what's gone wrong in Hopeville. For all the recent uproar about Joseph Farah and "Birthers," it is the Democratic Party which suffers most from the influence of its extremist supporters.

Jane Hamsher, Alan Colmes, and Keith Olbermann apparently live inside an echo chamber where a man who was a leader of a Marxist outfit like STORM, and who subsequently signed a 9/11 Truther petition, is not legitimately controversial. (The next time Colmes goes on Fox, somebody needs to ask him, "Hey, Alan, do you think Marxism is a bad thing?")

That someone like Jones could be appointed as a White House policy "czar," and that Olbermann can't see where some people might have a problem with that, tends to disprove the worry-wart concerns of certain centrist Republicans that the GOP is the more "extreme" of the two major parties. Does anyone seriously expect an avowed "Birther" to get a White House job in the next Republican administration?

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Given the state of the economy, it's very important that you hit the tip jar before you're bankrupted by the next mortgage meltdown. Now, who's in the mood for some Labor Day gloom-and-doom?

Sunday, September 6, 2009

New word: naïvel

Naïvel (adj.):

Comination of naïve + evil. This adjective covers the progression of audience opinion of a speaker from the first state to the second. It is frequently useful in the context of a public figure attempting to sell a steaming pile of nonsense as a reasonable statement. The audience wants to take the speaker at face value, because that is what reasonable people do.

The first thought in the mind of the audience is: "Wow, the guy forced to answer for this event must have been really naïve to buy off on that chain of reasoning in the first place."

That thought fades out with a disquieting aftertaste. Given the probabilistic nature of confidence in anything said by a public figure, the audience moves to a state where:
  1. The intelligence required to hold the public office should preclude such naïvete,
  2. Therefore, the likelihood of there being more facts to the story is quite high, and the motive for the steaming loaf of nonsense, instead of candor, might be reasonably attributable to sheer evil.
Example:
White House press briefing.
Robert Gibbs: Major?
Fox News Correspondent Major Major Major Major: Given the presumably thorough screening applied to Executive Office positions, how is it possible that Van Jones was hired, considering the amount of blatantly anti-American output the gentleman produced this decade?
Gibbs: Well, we were unaware of any of that.
Major^4: Dude, like, tha' is soo the naïvel, and stuff.


Update:
Linked at Reaganite Republican Resistance.

This post is really a shameless attempt to be cool like Morgan Freeberg.

'I felt like taking a shower afterwards'

That's Howard Kurtz, discussing the Vanity Fair interview with Levi "Ricky Hollywood" Johnston, a slimy disgrace to the profession of journalism. Kurtz gets credit from Craig Henry at Lead & Gold.

Not much to add to Jimmie Bise's Van Jones piece

by Smitty

Someone Get Out the Wetnaps, Van Jones Has Resigned, goes Jimmies post, and he rounds things up nicely.

But for a nice chaser, there is Carl Pope at the Huffer: We All Blew It. Now, I don't want to spend time wondering about the relation of the verb and direct object in the title have to do with the end of the last Iowahawk outing.
Pope:
...on Saturday night, Van resigned, and this morning I was sick at heart. Collectively we -- the environmental community, progressives, and the Obama administration -- blew this, and we let our cause, our president, and Van Jones down.

This was a lynch mob and, when it started forming a month ago, we didn't take it seriously enough. When I saw the first Glenn Beck piece on Van Jones and the Apollo Alliance as the new vast left-wing conspiracy, I could not take it seriously. Silence enabled Fox to keep pushing. The statements for which Jones apologized -- the reference to the right as "assholes" and saying that Bush was talking "like a crack-head" were such ordinary political discourse -- think Rahm Emmanuel, think Dick Cheney saying "fuck yourself" to Senator Leahy, think Tom Friedman dubbing Bush "the addict-in-chief" -- that I didn't understand why an apology was necessary; I assumed it would blow over.
I guess it would be an interesting experiment. Maybe Dr. Helen could officiate. Sit a guy like Pope down in a room, and have him go over the facts, and determine just what minimum amount of reality is needed to achieve actual understanding.

The rest of Pope's piece is about the spirited defense of Jones he'd intended to post, before Van ejected, "revved up like a deuce into the roller in the night" as it were. Here is the title:
Breaking News: "George W. Bush Says Americans Are Crack-Heads".
I don't know, maybe it seems less an exercise in Olympic straw-grasping in context. Read his full post, and see if you don't think the premise somewhere between completely unhinged and off-meds-surreal. I, for one, stand awed.

Are You Ready to (Tea) Party?

We're now only six days away from Saturday's big Taxpayer March On D.C. -- are you fired up, people?

This is going to be The Mother Of All Tea Parties, the day that the Washington politicians in both parties finally behold the united power of the grassroots taxpayer uprising against runaway government. The Tea Party Patriots are planning events nationwide Saturday, but if you can make it Washington, you don't want to miss this one -- it's going to be like Woodstock for right-wingers!

Imagine the sheer panic of those corrupt liberals and sold-out RINOs when they see a vast army of thousands of patriotic American citizens-- scores of brilliant yellow Gadsden Flags with their "Don't Tread On Me!" mottos flying proudly in the breeze -- marching on the Capitol!

Ah, friends, but this is going to be much more than just a one-day protest march. The sponsors have scheduled three days of organized activism (see the agenda below) and, more than that, there will be parties every evening so that the friends of freedom can get together to meet, greet and relax.

As a matter of fact, co-blogger Smitty be will hosting one such soiree this week -- SmittyPalooza II is scheduled for Thursday evening. The inaugural SmittyPalooza was an intimate affair, with about a dozen bloggers gathering for refreshments and flesh-time fellowship. This Thursday's event promises to be somewhat larger -- I got a wild hair about 2 a.m. Saturday and invited 94 of my Facebook friends. If you're a blogger or regular reader of The Other McCain who will be in D.C. this week and you're interested in attending SmittyPalooza II, please e-mail Smitty for details.

But wait! There's more! Friday evening, the Young Conservative Coalition and Parcbench will host a "Red, White & Brew" Happy Hour at Capitol City Brewery -- near Union Station, about four blocks from the Capitol. Are you a "Young Conservative"? Hey, age is just a number -- you're invited!

There will be other parties during the week. Lots of celebrities will be in town for this event -- including radio talk-show hosts like my friends Martha Zoller of Atlanta and Doc Thompson of Richmond -- and among my skills as an investigative journalist is an uncanny ability to discover the location of private parties that need to be crashed. So if you're hanging with our posse in D.C. this week, it's guaranteed to be a blast.

So what are you waiting for? Sign-up for the 9/12 March on DC now! Here is the agenda for the week:

Thursday, 9-10
  • 9:00am to 12:00pm Liberty Summit at DC Armory
  • 1:00pm: Press Conference on Capitol Hill
  • 1:30pm to 5:30pm: Grassroots lobbying visits on Capitol Hill
  • 5:30pm Doctors Rally Against Socialized Medicine
Friday, 9-11
  • 9:00am Leadership Institute: Internet Activist Workshop
  • 10:00am – 5:00pm ParentalRights.org Lobbyist and Activism Training Seminars
  • 12:00pm to 4:00pm CEI/ARC Intellectual Ammunition Workshop
  • 1:00pm Leadership Institute: Grassroots On the Ground Workshop
  • 2:00pm to 5:30pm Grassroots lobbying visits on Capitol Hill
  • 4:00pm Bureaucrash Happy Hour at Bullfeathers
  • 5:00 pm Leadership Institute: Grassroots on the Hill Workshop
  • 6:30pm to 10:00pm Remember 911 and support the troops at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
  • 8:00am – 11:00pm Sign-Making at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill (400 New Jersey Avenue, NW) Congressional Room B
Saturday, 9-12
  • 9:00am Crowd gathers at Freedom Plaza
  • 11:30am March on the Capitol Begins down Pennsylvania Ave.
  • 1:00pm March ends and Rally Begins at West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Many of these events require registration, so be sure to check the official 9/12 agenda for details. If you haven't already made the decision to join this massive three-day effort to wake up Washington, it's not too late. Whether you can do the whole week or just Saturday's big rally, please come to D.C.for this event -- it's going to be the greatest party ever, and you're invited!
And speaking of economics, please hit the tip jar. It's quite literally for the children -- including the World's Cutest Child.

Go, Senator Coburn, go!

by Smitty (h/t Bluegrass Pundit)

I'm nearly in tears. No joke. This guy bears consideration for President, if he's interested, and a straight-ahead draft as POTUS if he's not.

He has more grasp the Constitution, and what this country is really about, than just about anyone else I've heard currently holding public office.

Pelosi endorsing Van Jones

by Smitty (h/t Don Surber)

No guess as to when the Wicked Witch of the West said this, but, as a safety measure, have your barf bag in hot standby for this one:

Maybe San Fran Nan could be John Edwards' next squeeze for Sunsetter Retractable Awnings:

Go Phyllis!

Cynthia Yockey rounds up a brutal punk-smacking that Phyllis Chesler laid on Naomi Wolfe who -- I am not making this up -- defended the burqa as "feminist."

My apologies to Cynthia and Phyllis for not noticing earlier, as I get so wrapped up in my own flame-wars that it's like tunnel vision.

Speaking of flame wars and feminism, Little Miss Attila took womynly offense at Ace of Spades after Ace finally lost patience with LGF's Charles Johnson over the Van Jones controversy. In exasperation, Ace's cri de coeur was: "This is like arguing with a woman of the more irrational sort."

Attila acts outraged, but she knows exactly what Ace is talking about. Any argument between a man and a woman will eventually reach the stage at which the woman's key point is, "You are a bad person for disagreeing with me."

In response, the man's argument becomes, "Why don't you shut your stupid mouth and fix me some biscuits?"

Which was essentially what Ace was saying to Charles.

'Punished with a baby? At your age?'

"That's terrible!"

(Conservative Funhouse via Hot Air Headlines.)

They got the gold mine . . .

Guess who gets the shaft?
Precisely one year ago, we lucky taxpayers took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants that contributed mightily to the wild and crazy home-loan-boom-turned-bust. . . . According to the company’s most recent quarterly financial statement, the Treasury will, by Sept. 30, have handed over $45 billion to shore up the company’s net worth. . . .
As a result of the Fannie takeover, taxpayers are paying millions of dollars in legal defense bills for three top former executives, including Franklin D. Raines, who left the company in late 2004 under accusations of accounting improprieties. From Sept. 6, 2008, to July 21, these legal payments totaled $6.3 million. . . .
Read the rest. Meanwhile, let's talk jobless "recovery":
Many experts envision a jobless recovery, in which the economy grows but job losses persist. . . .
After the government unleashed $787 billion to stimulate economic growth, and after it bailed out financial institutions and the auto industry, the unemployment rate exceeds worst-case projections envisioned by the administration early this year. . . .
If the jobless rate continues to climb, as is widely expected, that could generate pressure for another stimulus spending package. But given intensifying concern about the size of federal budget deficits -- now projected to exceed $9 trillion within a decade -- any new spending could be politically perilous.
And, hey, how's that stimulus workin' for ya?
It was just five months ago that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. made the New Flyer bus factory [in St. Cloud, Minn.] a symbol of the stimulus. With several cabinet secretaries in tow, he held a town-hall-style meeting at the factory, where he praised the company as "an example of the future" and said that it stood to get more orders for its hybrid electric buses thanks to the $8.4 billion that the stimulus law devotes to mass transit.
But last month, the company that administration officials had pictured as a stimulus success story began laying off 320 people, or 13 percent of its work force . . .
Oh, yes -- the joy of misery!

UPDATE: Now a Memeorandum thread (although omitting me so far).

Looks like Norm got stomped

by Smitty

Via email, Ace of Spades has this clip, with much more background, that is arguably the single most important Town Hall clip EVAR.

Could this clip eventually be as popular as Daniel Hannan flogging Gordon Brown?

Rule 5 Sunday

by Smitty

Rule 5 on a day where, unlike the unemployment numbers, it looks like the slope on the conservative side of the political aisle might be desirable.
It is also desirable to pile on the positive with a post exploring beauty.
  • The Daley Gator starts us off with a selection of Suzanne Pleshette.
  • HotMES contributes Zooey Deschanel
  • The VodkaPundit contributes Sigourney Weaver. We're cool with that. If he plays the Meryl Streep card, well, we'll see.
  • Three Beers Later proffers Miranda Lambert. TBL doubles down with with an Aussie fitness vid, mates. He also lays a Trace Adkins with some notable Rule 5-age. Then McEnroe cleaves Celtic, with a Máiréad Nesbitt roundup. Go Gaelic!
  • Carrie Prejean aficionado Troglopundit is keeping up with all that luscious legal news. When disengaged from his legal engagements, Troggy finds time to offer PR help to the likes of Megan Fox. Got to keep that cold reptilian blood hot, right? But who knew that Troglodytes were keen on Heavy Armed Women? Troggy remains more fascinating than National Geographic.
  • Joshuapundit has some Rule 5 readership. This blog gnashes its teeth with envy.
  • Rightofcourse plays the Notre Dame cheerleader card. This is a sensitive issue. As a Naval Academy grad, I'm reaching across the aisle in a big way to show any favor to a bunch of Domers. I do it from a deep bi-partisan spirit, striving to remember that we're all Americans.
  • Jeffords seems to have a Kim Kardashian angle. There is the back of a head in the mirror that he failed to disclaim. Connecting the dots is an exercise for the reader.
  • Esteemed Minister of Culter, Paco, offers Lena Horne on "Stormy Weather". I'm a big boy. I can admit that this is a far more attractive choice than Howlin' Hobbit on "King of the Road" to describe Van Jones' current employment situation.
  • WyBlog's survey of Hard Hat Hotties makes one consider slowing down on the Jersey Turnpike.
  • Over at the Camp of the Saints, Bog rounds up Summer pinups. Honor Blackman, and advertises dinner with an outstanding lady, Pamela Geller, whose charm and blog chops really form their own category. We luv huh.
  • The Classic Liberal presents Alyssa Jayne Milano amidst a Robert Montgomery essay that you should totally read for the essay. Rule 5 maintains its firm commitment to didactic value, though will fall short of demanding time to address the nation's schoolchildren. That would be creepy.
  • William Teach had another of those excellent retro pinups of his at the Pirate's Cove.
  • Fishersville Mike insists that Taylor Swift blow you a kiss, which we'll facilitate.
That's your Rule 5 Sunday roundup. Send your fun stuff and cheesecake to Smitty. Ponder the tip jar, and pray for peace.

WHO HIRED VAN JONES?

Now that he's resigned -- thanks for the linky-love, Tim Blair -- we turn to Jennifer Rubin:
"The question remains: how did he get hired?"
Expect Michelle Malkin to follow up on this, but I think she already has the answer from Valerie Jarrett:
Valerie Jarrett took full credit at the nuttroots dKos blogger conference . . . for recruiting him and closely following his career:
"You guys know Van Jones? . . . Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House."
Such "creative ideas" and "all that energy"! A Yale Law grad and yet, somehow, a victim of raaaaacism!

Pejman Yousefzadeh throws some show-tune lyrics at Jones. (NTTAWWT.) The Underground Conservative and Right View from the Left Coast give up the linky-love. (NTTAWWT, either.)

UPDATE: As predicted, Michelle Malkin conducts a seminar on how the MSM has ignored and distorted the story about Van Jones.

VAN JONES RESIGNS!

AP NEWS ALERT:
Obama aide Van Jones resigns as environmental adviser amid controversy over past statements.
Remember: 5 A's in "raaaaaacism."

UPDATE: We remind you that John Hinderaker had expected the rap-music angle to be the last straw.

UPDATE II: More AP news via Chicago Tribune: "The White House issued a statement early Sunday saying Jones had quit the administration."

UPDATE III: by Smitty
Since you can't find Don Meredith doing "Turn Out the Lights" on YouTube, how about an obscure dude from Seattle working out on Roger Miller?

UPDATE IV: (RSM) Heavy action on Twitter:
  • John Hawkins: "I'll enjoy the sweet salty tears of the Left and their cries of 'Racism! Wingnuts! Rarrrr!' over Van Jones leaving"
  • LadyPatriot: "The wheels on Obama's bus go thumpety-thump. Van Jones, you can't trust a guy who throws his grandma & 20yr pastor under the bus!"
Fire Andrea Mitchell is also blogging the resignation.

UPDATE V: WH statement at Washington Post:
"I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today," Jones said in a resignation letter released by the CEQ late Saturday.
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide," he said.
"I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight,'" he continued. "But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.
"It has been a great honor to serve my country and my President in this capacity. I thank everyone who has offered support and encouragement. I am proud to have been able to make a contribution to the clean energy future. I will continue to do so, in the months and years ahead."
UPDATE VI: David Horowitz at NewsReal says Valerie Jarrett should go, too:
The Obama Administration -- the Soros network and the Apollo Alliance -- are revealed to their rotten core here. This was their protege and only an idiot . . . would not be able to see what’s going on here.
UPDATE VII: Wlady at the The American Spectator cites the Wall Street Journal -- when I had it 20 minutes earlier! A blogger gets no respect, no respect at all, I tell ya . . .

Now a Memeorandum thread. Our claim to exclusivity? Thanks to Smitty, we're the only blog to react to this news with video of some dude strumming a ukelele and singing "King of the Road."

UPDATE VIII: You gotta love the L.A. Times:
Van Jones, the onetime Marxist whose controversial statements about Republicans and 9/11 have made him a distracting lightning rod as Barack Obama's environmental czar in recent days, resigned tonight.
That "onetime Marxist" is classic. As if, sometime in the interval, Jones had an epiphany on the Road to Damascus: "Hayek! Mises! Friedman! We must deregulate! Cut taxes!"

Fox News now has a story, and a Red State blogger observes:
Interesting time to be turning in one's resignation - midnight Saturday night, on a holiday weekend. I guess this gives the MSM a chance to not report it again.
Of course, while the MSM ignored the "controversy," they'll be all over the resignation as proof of the viciousness of right-wingers.

UPDATE IX: Predictable reaction at DailyKos:
Van Jones: A "High-Tech Lynching"
Yeah, I'm sure George Allen is heartbroken about this. Understatement of the decade from Ed Driscoll:
[S]omething tells me that Glenn Beck is going to have reasonably good ratings on Monday.
Gee, ya think? Ed quotes Andy Levy's Twitter:
"Won't it be weird when people who don't get their news from the internet or FNC have no idea who the guy who resigned is?"
Read the whole thing -- a really solid aggregation by Mr. Driscoll. Well, I've done enough for one Sunday morning. Alabama beat Virginia Tech, Van Jones resigned, and all is right with the world.